alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7509]



[[Page 19916]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL05-1-003]


Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 16, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 6, 2007, Entergy Services, Inc., acting 
as agent for Entergy Arkansas, Inc., filed a refund report pursuant to 
the Commission's February 20, 2007 Order, 118 FERC ] 61,134 (2007).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a2c2f382925040603040f391f1a1a05181e2a0c0f1809440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b0d0e190804252722252e183e3b3b24393f0b2d2e3928652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7509 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the First Division,

December 5, 1951

No. 56111.

protests 136221-K, etc. (New York).

#### Artgift Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 56602.

protests 870530-G, etc. (New York).

#### Schenley Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

January 5, 1939

No. 40317.

#### Protest 967027-G of R. C. Williams & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It now appears that there is a claim in the amendment to the protest that the wine is subject only to a 5-cent per wine gallon assessment under section 1300 of the internal-revenue act as amended in 1936. That claim was found to be also well taken and was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10247)

#### J. M. Rodgers Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 797462; 820207; 811254.

*650(Decided May 15, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn for*the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto annexed and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to approval of the Court, as follows:

> (1) The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto annexed and made a part hereof consists of sodium per-borate exported from West Germany during 1956.

> (2) The merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those 'the subject of *United States*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134, and the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> (3) On or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> (4) On or about the said dates of exportation,, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, at $30.80 per 100 kilos less ocean freight as invoiced, said price including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

> (5) The appeals enumerated in said Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved and that at the time of exportation such value for the merchandise herein involved, as covered by the appeals set forth in schedule “A,” was $30.80 per 100 kilos, less ocean freight, as invoiced, said price including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC2 1

- 1 327

____________ CANDIE LYNN WALKER , Petitioner ,

v s . STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

. January 6, 2022 LAWSON, J

. Petitioner, Candie Lynn Walker, through counsel, seeks to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, which allows us to review, among other things, “any decision of a district court of
appea l that . . . expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal . . . on the same question of law.” Counsel’s jurisdictional brief argues that we are empowered to review the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Wa lker v.
State , 324 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), because it conflicts with a- 2

- decision in another case “decided in the same district court of appeal.” This argument is contrary to the plain language of our constitution, which only grants discretionary jur isdiction under this
clause when a decision from one district court “conflicts with a
decision of another district court of appeal.” Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.
Const. (emphasis added). Not surprisingly, our precedent also makes clear that “[t]his Court’s ju risdiction does not extend to
intra

- district conflict.” Terry v. State , 808 So. 2d 1249, 1250 n.1 (Fla. 2002). Because the only jurisdictional argument presented in Walker’s brief is contrary to our constitution and precedent, we deny Walker’s petition.
It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions
Fi rst District

- Case No. 1D20

- 608 ( Escambia County)- 3

- Philip J. Massa of Philip J. Massa, P.A. , West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida , for Respondent
# C_2008239EN.01001901.xml

| 18.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/19

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/73/08

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2008/C 239/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition EPSO/AST/73/08 for the recruitment of Assistants (AST 3) with Swedish as their main language as proofreaders in the field of publications production for the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE) in Luxembourg and/or the institutions of the European Union.

The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 239 A of 18 September 2008 in Swedish only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19688-19689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7385]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-580-816)


Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: 
Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho at (202) 482-5075, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 29, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published a notice of initiation of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products from Korea, covering the period August 1, 2005 to 
July 31, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). The 
preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than May 
3, 2007.

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order 
or finding for which a review is requested. Section

[[Page 19689]]

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to 
complete the review within the time period specified, the administering 
authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary 
results by up to 120 days.
    We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this 
review within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following 
reasons. This review covers three companies, and to conduct the sales 
and cost analyses for each company requires the Department to gather, 
analyze and verify a significant amount of information pertaining to 
each company's sales practices, manufacturing costs and corporate 
relationships. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case, 
and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are 
extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review 
by 120 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later 
than August 31, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days 
after publication of the preliminary results.

    Dated: April 11, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-7385 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Benjamin Hendricks, eta/., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 2: 12-cv-729 

John Kasich, eta/., Judge Michael H. Watson 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

Plaintiff moves to dismiss this case without prejudice. Mot. Dismiss, ECF 

No. 42. Magistrate Judge Kemp has issued a report and recommendation 

("R&R") recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion. R&R, ECF No. 43. 

The R&R advised the parties of their right to file objections and specifically stated 

that the failure to object would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by 

the Undersigned and a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the 

Undersigned. The time for objecting has long passed, and no objections were 

filed. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and dismisses this case without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MfCHAELH:WATSON, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:12-cv-00729-MHW-TPK Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/25/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 192 

Affirming that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States 

guarantees the freedom of the press and asserting that no purpose 

is served by sentencing journalists Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, 

nor any similarly situated journalists, to prison for maintaining the 

anonymity of confidential sources. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2005 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. LUGAR, and Mr. DODD) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Affirming that the First Amendment of the Constitution 

of the United States guarantees the freedom of the press 

and asserting that no purpose is served by sentencing 

journalists Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, nor any 

similarly situated journalists, to prison for maintaining 

the anonymity of confidential sources. 

Whereas the First Amendment of the Constitution of the 

United States guarantees the freedom of the press; 

Whereas it is essential to the democracy of the United States 

that journalists may report important information to the 

public without fear of intimidation or imprisonment; 

Whereas a majority of the States and the District of Columbia have enacted media shield laws to protect the right 
2 

•SRES 192 IS

of journalists to maintain the anonymity of confidential 

sources; 

Whereas Robert Novak, the columnist first to publish the 

identity of a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer by 

name, stated that the Government should not imprison 

journalists for maintaining the anonymity of confidential 

sources; 

Whereas a United States district court judge may soon sentence Matthew Cooper, the White House correspondent 

for Time Magazine, and Judith Miller, a journalist for 

the New York Times, to prison for contempt for refusing 

to disclose confidential sources; 

Whereas that United States district court judge will hold a 

hearing to consider arguments against imprisonment of 

those journalists; and 

Whereas it is the responsibility of the United States Senate 

to make its views known in areas of national and legal 

importance: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) affirms that the First Amendment of the 

3 Constitution of the United States guarantees the 

4 freedom of the press; and 

5 (2) proclaims that no purpose is served by im6 prisoning journalists Judith Miller and Matthew 

7 Cooper. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Aug-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          Sep-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            Nov-30-2000
<CASH>                                          510
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                510
<PP&E>                                      509,888
<DEPRECIATION>                              503,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               28,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     6,248,467
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                 38,258,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 28,073
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (781,281)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            148,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          632,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               2,048
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (781,281)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.8



|     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                         
|---- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  |  |  | CMBS Department 
MAC N9401-011 1055 10th Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN
55414
|     |  | 
|     |  | 

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation Trust 2015-590M, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-590M
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 10, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., as Custodian (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 17, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|GAIL VANNEST  
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 158 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 158

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate 
the week beginning September 11, 2005, as ``National Historically Black 
                   Colleges and Universities Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2005

Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bunning, 
  Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, Mr. DeMint, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Dole, Mr. 
Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, 
 Mr. Lott, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
 Talent, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Obama, and Mr. 
  Burr) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate 
the week beginning September 11, 2005, as ``National Historically Black 
                   Colleges and Universities Week''.

Whereas there are 105 historically Black colleges and universities in the United 
        States;
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities provide the quality 
        education essential to full participation in a complex, highly 
        technological society;
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have a rich heritage and 
        have played a prominent role in the history of the United States;
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have allowed many 
        underprivileged students to attain their full potential through higher 
        education; and
Whereas the achievements and goals of historically Black colleges and 
        universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND 
              UNIVERSITIES WEEK.

    (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
President should designate the week beginning September 11, 2005, as 
``National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week''.
    (b) Proclamation.--The Senate requests the President to issue a 
proclamation--
            (1) designating the week beginning September 11, 2005, as 
        ``National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week''; 
        and
            (2) calling on the people of the United States and 
        interested groups to observe the week with appropriate 
        ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate support for 
        historically Black colleges and universities in the United 
        States.
                                 <all>
```
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station 

Evaluation,, of EIS 

Alternatives 

by t .... h Science 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

United States 

Department 

of the Interior 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

This is not a NEPA decision document 
Evaluation of EIS Alternatives 

by the 

Science Integration Team 

Volume H 

This volume contains pages 537-1094 

Thomas M. Quigley, Kristine M. Lee, 

and Sylvia J. Arbelbide 

Technical Editors 

Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist/economist with the USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Walla Walla, WA 99362 

Kristine M. Lee is a biologist with the USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT 84401 

Sylvia J. Arbelbide is a geologist with the USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA 94111 

May 1997 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Portland, Oregon 
VOLUME I 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

Chapter 2. Landscape Ecology Evaluation of Alternatives 29 

Chapter 3. Effects of Proposed Alternatives on Aquatic Habitats 

and Native Fishes 435 

VOLUME H 

Chapter 4. Historical and Current Status of Terrestrial Species 

and the Effects of Proposed Alternatives 537 

Chapter 5. Economic Evaluation of the Preliminary Draft EIS Alternatives 731 

Chapter 6. An Estimate of the Social Consequences of Alternatives 

in the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Preliminary Draft 

Environmental Impact Statements 759 

Chapter 7. Ecological Integrity, Socioeconomic Resiliency, and Trends in Risk 835 

Chapter 8. The February 1996 and February 1997 EIS Versions: 

Changes in Effects 897 

Appendix I 935 

Appendix 1T 1083